PDA

View Full Version : Interesting


wacki
10-23-2004, 05:47 PM
I was at the bars last night with a bunch of Marines and they had similar thoughts. Vulturesrow, since you were over there do you agree with this as well?
http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=11425_No_One_Asked_Us

No One Asked Us
By Major Stan Coerr, USMCR

George Bush coalesced American support behind invading Iraq, I am told, using two arguments: Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and the capability to deliver them, and Iraq was a supporter of Al-Qaeda terrorism, and may have been involved in the attacks of 9/11. Vicious words and gratuitous finger-pointing keep falling back on these points, as people insist that “we” were misled into what started as a dynamic liberation and has become a bloody counterinsurgency. Watching politicians declaim and hearing television experts expound on why we went to war and on their opinions of those running the White House and Defense Department, I have one question.

When is someone going to ask the guys who were there?

What about the opinions of those whose lives were on the line, massed on the Iraq-Kuwait border beginning in February of last year? I don’t know how President Bush got the country behind him, because at the time I was living in a hole in the dirt in northern Kuwait. Why have I not heard a word from anyone who actually carried a rifle or flew a plane into bad guy country last year, and who has since had to deal with the ugly aftermath of a violent liberation? What about the guys who had the most to lose—what do they think about all this?

I was there. I am one of those guys who fought the war and helped keep the peace. I am a Major in the Marine Reserves, and during the war I was the senior American attached to the 1 Royal Irish Battlegroup, a rifle battalion of the British Army. I was commander of five U.S. Marine air/naval gunfire liaison teams, as well as the liaison officer between U.S. Marines and British Army forces. I was activated on January 14, 2003, and 17 days later I and my Marines were standing in Kuwait with all of our gear, ready to go to war.

I majored in Political Science at Duke, and I graduated with a Masters degree in government from the Kennedy School at Harvard. I understand realpolitik, geopolitical jujitsu, economics and the reality of the Arab world. I know the tension between the White House, the UN, Langley and Foggy Bottom. One of my grandfathers was a two-star Navy admiral; my other grandfather was an ambassador. I am not a pushover, blindly following whoever is in charge, and I don’t kid myself that I live in a perfect world. But the war made sense then, and the occupation makes sense now.

As dawn broke on March 22, 2003, I became part of one of the largest and fastest land movements in the history of war. I went across the border alongside my brothers in the Royal Irish, following the 5th Marine Regiment from Camp Pendleton as they swept through the Ramaylah oil fields. I was one those guys you saw on TV every night- filthy, hot, exhausted. I think the NRA and their right-to-bear-arms mantra is a joke, but by God I was carrying a loaded rifle, a loaded pistol and a knife on my body at all times. My boots rested on sandbags on the floor of my Humvee, there to protect me from the blast of a land mines or IED.

I killed many Iraqi soldiers, as they tried to kill me and my Marines. I did it with a radio, directing airstrikes and artillery, in concert with my British artillery officer counterpart, in combat along the Hamar Canal in southern Iraq. I saw, up close, everything the rest of you see in the newspapers: dead bodies, parts of dead bodies, helmets with bullet holes through them, handcuffed POWs sitting in the sand, oil well fires with flames reaching 100 feet into the air and a roar you could hear from over a mile away.

I stood on the bloody sand where Marine Second Lieutenant Therrel Childers was the first American killed on the ground. I pointed a loaded weapon at another man for the first time in my life. I did what I had spent 14 years training to do, and my Marines - your Marines - performed so well it still brings tears to my eyes to think about it. I was proud of what we did then, and I am proud of it now.

Along with the violence, I saw many things that lifted my heart. I saw thousands of Iraqis in cities like Qurnah and Medinah - men, women, children, grandparents carrying babies - running into the streets at the sight of us, the first Western army to arrive. I saw them screaming, crying, waving, cheering. They ran from their homes at the sound of our Humvee tires roaring in from the south, bringing bread and tea and cigarettes and photos of their children. They chattered at us in Arabic, and we spoke to them in English, and neither understood the other. The entire time I was in Iraq, I had one impression from the civilians I met: Thank God, finally someone has arrived with bigger men and bigger guns to be, at last, on our side.

Let there be no mistake, those of you who don’t believe in this war: the Ba’ath regime were the Nazis of the second half of the 20th century. I saw what the murderous, brutal regime of Saddam Hussein wrought on that country through his party and their Fedayeen henchmen. They raped, murdered, tortured, extorted and terrorized those in that country for 35 years. There are mass graves throughout Iraq only now being discovered. 1st Battalion, 5th Marines, out of Camp Pendleton, liberated a prison in Iraq populated entirely by children. The Ba’athists brutalized the weakest among them, and killed the strongest.

I saw in the eyes of the people how a generation of fear reflects in the human soul.

The Ba’ath Party, like the Nazis before them, kept power by spreading out, placing their officials in every city and every village to keep the people under their boot. Everywhere we went we found rifles, ammunition, RPG rounds, mortar shells, rocket launchers, and artillery. When we took over the southern city of Ramaylah, our battalion commander tore down the Ba’ath signs and commandeered the former regime headquarters in town (which, by the way, was 20 feet from the local school.) My commander himself took over the office of the local Ba’ath leader, and in opening the desk of that thug found a set of brass knuckles and a gun. These are the people who are now in prison, and that is where they deserve to be.

The analogy is simple. For years, you have watched the same large, violent man come home every night, and you have listened to his yelling and the crying and the screams of children and the noise of breaking glass, and you have always known that he was beating his wife and his children. Everyone on the block has known it. You ask, cajole, threaten and beg him to stop, on behalf of the rest of the neighborhood. Nothing works. After listening to it for 13 years, you finally gather up the biggest, meanest guys you can find, you go over to his house, and you kick the door down. You punch him in the face and drag him away. The house is a mess, the family poor and abused — but now there is hope. You did the right thing.

I can speak with authority on the opinions of both British and American infantry in that place and at that time. Let me make this clear: at no time did anyone say or imply to any of us that we were invading Iraq to rid the country of weapons of mass destruction, nor were we there to avenge 9/11. We knew we were there for one reason: to rid the world of a tyrant, and to give Iraq back to Iraqis.

None of us had even heard those arguments for going to war until we returned, and we still don’t understand the confusion. To us, it was simple. The world needed to be rid of a man who committed mass murder of an entire people, and our country was the only one that could project that much power that far and with that kind of precision. We don’t make policy decisions: we carry them out. And none of us had the slightest doubt about how right and good our actions were.

The war was the right thing to do then, and in hindsight it was still the right thing to do. We can’t overthrow every murderous tyrant in the world, but when we can, we should. Take it from someone who was there, and who stood to lose everything. We must, and will, stay the course. We owe it to the Iraqis, and to the world.

Stan Coerr is a SuperCobra attack helicopter pilot and Forward Air Controller, and was recently selected for Lieutenant Colonel in the Marine Corps Reserve. He lives in San Diego.

wacki
10-23-2004, 05:49 PM
Let me make this clear: at no time did anyone say or imply to any of us that we were invading Iraq to rid the country of weapons of mass destruction, nor were we there to avenge 9/11. We knew we were there for one reason: to rid the world of a tyrant, and to give Iraq back to Iraqis.

None of us had even heard those arguments for going to war until we returned, and we still don’t understand the confusion. - Odd thing to say. Do marines not watch regular news?

vulturesrow
10-24-2004, 02:06 AM
I'd say thats a pretty good summation.

nothumb
10-24-2004, 02:45 AM
Interesting article indeed. Very well written. Inspires sympathy and admiration.

So I will respond the way bisonbison responded to the last one of these. "So I guess this makes the war and planning a good idea after all."

The soldiers might believe this for these reasons (and they have to, their lives depend on it) but did the American public? No. Would they have? No. That's why Bush 'sexed up the evidence' as they say in Britain.

The debate over whether invading Iraq for these reasons would have been correct is indeed interesting, but moot.

NT

lastchance
10-24-2004, 03:00 AM
I wonder how much EV one would get if one decided to invade for these reasons. I wonder how many liberals would jump on Bush's bandwagon and how many conservatives would oppose it...

durron597
10-24-2004, 03:58 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I wonder how much EV one would get if one decided to invade for these reasons. I wonder how many liberals would jump on Bush's bandwagon and how many conservatives would oppose it...

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a conservative, and it's for these reasons that I support the war; nothing to do with WMD.

I'm not in favor of some people being "more equal" than others (affirmitive action, welfare, etc.) but I am in favor of the concepts of Freedom, Liberty, and the blood that must be shed to guarantee these concepts. One does not cause the other; that is known as the "slippery slope" fallacy.

Chris Alger
10-24-2004, 04:08 AM
[ QUOTE ]
When is someone going to ask the guys who were there?

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, there's the obvious: combat troops in any war usually have little insight about the arguments that they're killing and dying for bad reasons, much less about the cause of those who are trying to kill them. It's not like they receive a health dose of "on the other hand" during the indoctrination lectures. And they are, after all, presumably busy with other things.

But I guess the real answer he's looking for is this: only when somebody smashes the liberal media conspiracy that prevents TV journalists from asking troops in the field and their families from whether they support the war or otherwise "stand behind the President." Maybe I don't watch enough TV, but I've never seen or read any human interest stories like this, ever.

In other words, one should stop reading at this point because what follows will assuredly be the usual rightwing dumbguy sucker punch, pablum for weak-minded robots who need a constant supply of reassurance of American exceptionalism.

Of the 2,288 members of the U.S. Individual Ready Reserve ordered during these past few months to report for active duty by October 17, more than 800 or 37% have simply failed to appear or ask for more time. They join the already hundreds of others who have essentially told the President to take his wars and shove them up his ass. Aljazeera (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/D181A0B4-98C0-4B53-ACC9-55205CD4771E.htm) If you want something to think about instead of a daily propaganda dose, ask those troops what they believe.

[ QUOTE ]
"I don’t know how President Bush got the country behind him, because at the time I was living in a hole in the dirt in northern Kuwait."

[/ QUOTE ]
A major who "lived in a hole" isolated from all news of the world from August 2002 (when the war campaign began in earnest) until the March 2003 invasion? No radio transmissions from the Armed Forces network? No CNN or even Stars and Stripes? Sure. (While patrolling on nuclear alert in my submarine, going months without breaking the surface, we received the news almost every other day, and this was in the early 1980's).

[ QUOTE ]
I can speak with authority on the opinions of both British and American infantry in that place and at that time. Let me make this clear: at no time did anyone say or imply to any of us that we were invading Iraq to rid the country of weapons of mass destruction, nor were we there to avenge 9/11.

[/ QUOTE ]
So of the more than 150,000 U.S./UK troops in Iraq, none were informed about how the official justification for the war was the purported WMD threat. Not even Gen. Franks even heard even an implication of this claim. You have to have a low opinion of your audience to write garbage like this. Judging from some of the responses in this thread, he was right.

[ QUOTE ]
We knew we were there for one reason: to rid the world of a tyrant, and to give Iraq back to Iraqis.

[/ QUOTE ]
Bush spun a big wheel with the names of the world's tyrants, and lucked out when the clicker stopped on the one with the second largest oil reserves. Another claim that's so wildly unbelievable that he has to bury it deep in the text because up front, no one would read it. Imagine an article that began: The U.S., unlike every other great power in history, will selfless sacrifice blood and treasure for the cause of liberating the oppressed and giving them political power, without regardl to national interests or even self-defense, but simply because it's the right thing to do.

Interesting avoidance of the definite article "the" before Iraqis in "give Iraq back to Iraqis." He knows that it's not "the" Iraqis that we want to impower, but just "Iraqis" on our approved list. These are the lucky ones who get $30 million from U.S. taxpayers in "technical assistance and training for moderate and democratic political parties in Iraq" through the National Endowment for Democracy, according to the State Dept. yesterday.

Chris Alger
10-24-2004, 04:27 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I am in favor of the concepts of Freedom, Liberty, and the blood that must be shed to guarantee these concepts

[/ QUOTE ]
As well as believing in or at least tolerating mass official lying and misleading propaganda to ensure the survival of freedom and liberty, except the freedom and liberty of most to make informed choices about public policy involving mass official violence. In other words, you believe in the liberty and freedom to make policy that others will have to follow without the encumbrance of democracy.

Another tyranny apologist for "liberty," the loudest yelps about which, said Johnson over 200 years ago, come from "the drivers of Negroes." Yes, you're a "conservative."

ohiou
10-24-2004, 05:37 AM
Why can't we all just simply thank our soldiers for a moment and leave the politics behind?

No matter what you think of the war, there are Americans fighting it who deserve a thanks from both sides of the aisle for [censored]'s sake.

Foggy
10-24-2004, 07:46 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Why can't we all just simply thank our soldiers for a moment and leave the politics behind?

No matter what you think of the war, there are Americans fighting it who deserve a thanks from both sides of the aisle for [censored]'s sake.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, let's bury our heads in the sand (DYSWID?) and forget to ask whether our elected officials lied to us just because people we don't know are at risk because of those same lies....not sure I follow your logic.

Foggy
10-24-2004, 07:53 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I majored in Political Science at Duke, and I graduated with a Masters degree in government from the Kennedy School at Harvard. I understand realpolitik, geopolitical jujitsu, economics and the reality of the Arab world. I know the tension between the White House, the UN, Langley and Foggy Bottom. One of my grandfathers was a two-star Navy admiral; my other grandfather was an ambassador. I am not a pushover, blindly following whoever is in charge

[/ QUOTE ]

erm, yeah, you are, all grunts are.....

Chris Alger
10-24-2004, 08:47 AM
Because they only deserve our thanks if they're doing something for which we should be thankful, otherwise "both aisles" should be thanking the soldiers on "both sides," and all soldiers on all sides in all wars, which is ridiculous.

Whether the troops deserve our affirmative support is a function of the worthiness of the war. This doesn't justify demonizing them, but praising them for carrying out a war of aggression would be worse.

MMMMMM
10-24-2004, 09:22 AM
[ QUOTE ]
The soldiers might believe this for these reasons (and they have to, their lives depend on it) but did the American public? No. Would they have? No.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hell, I was posting about Saddam and his Stalinesque regime long before the war and even before contemplation of the war became a hot topic. Not like it was some great hidden secret or anything.

I don't see why more people did not latch onto the humanitarian call for the war. The information of Saddam's utter tyranny was freely available to all and I suspect most people realized it although probably not to its true and terrifying extent.

And yes I do think many Americans felt that was one great reason why we should have overthrown his regime--at least, those not blinded by other considerations.

LinusKS
10-24-2004, 11:32 AM
I feel for the Iraqi people, but it seems to me the first priority of an American president should be the American people.

We could have used those hundreds of billions of dollars right here at home - for health care, for the national debt, for education.

Instead, Bush spent them on Iraq.

LinusKS
10-24-2004, 11:54 AM
Another possibility - Bush could have used those troops and that money to do something about nuclear proliferation.

As it stands now, terrorists could send a nuke to Manhattan in a shipping container, and leave a smoking hole in the ground where New York would have been.

MMMMMM
10-24-2004, 12:23 PM
I wouldn't go so far as to take the stance that the Iraq war was necessarily the best use of those dollars spent.

andyfox
10-24-2004, 12:32 PM
"I don't see why more people did not latch onto the humanitarian call for the war"

Because there was no such call by the prosecutors of the war before the war. It was only after, when their justifications turned out to be thinner air and worse, that such justifications were advanced. So naturally it was seen as a justification, rather than a reason. Because it surely was.

ACPlayer
10-24-2004, 01:04 PM
Notice how at this point in time with all the knowledge we now have about how impotent Saddam actually was, every "conservative" from Bush down is saying they real reason was to rid the world of a tyrant.

Back then it was all WMD, with the other reasons thrown in with the kitchen sink of reasons. Even as late as a couple of months ago, Cheney was promising WMD.

Selective memory - the bane of all poker players.

ACPlayer
10-24-2004, 01:08 PM
The reason conservatives are opposed to affirmative action and welfare is because we believe that handing out goodies that are not earned solves nothing.

Handing out democracy like bits of candy does not make a country a free society.

Classically bad liberal thinking.

MMMMMM
10-24-2004, 01:29 PM
[ QUOTE ]

"I don't see why more people did not latch onto the humanitarian call for the war"

Because there was no such call by the prosecutors of the war before the war. It was only after, when their justifications turned out to be thinner air and worse, that such justifications were advanced. So naturally it was seen as a justification, rather than a reason. Because it surely was.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why should there have had to be a "call" made publicly? Why wasn't the humanitarian case obvious on its face, as stark as it was, for so many years? (Not saying that would necessarily justify the war, but I have a lot of trouble with the attitude struck by many people that the humanitarian purpose was justified in Kosovo but not in Iraq)

The once and future king
10-24-2004, 01:44 PM
[ QUOTE ]
to rid the world of a tyrant

[/ QUOTE ]

THIS IS A TOTALY INVALID REASON FOR WAR

The world is full of tyrants. Seeing we picked on a particular tyrant, we logicaly have to DISTINGUISH THAT PARTICULAR TYRANT FROM OTHER TYRANTS IN GENERAL.

I aks then the question what distingiushes this tyrant over others?

MMMMMM
10-24-2004, 04:12 PM
Why is it an invalid reason for war? Just because we are showing preference by ridding the world of one tyrant, but not all tyrants? If we can't help all, we should help none??? Because we can't give enouigh food aid to end starvation all over the world, we shouldn't give it anywhere, because that would be showing favoritism??? What then about giving money say to a homeless person? If I can't help them all, I shouldn't help any? Sorry but that line of reasoning does not make sense to me.

I have posted before that since we do not have the means to rid the world of all tyrants, we should be selective based on several things: cost to ourselves, cost to the people of the afflictd country, degeee of tyranny that has been imposed, and our own selfish interests (a way of helping to defray net cost, in a sense).

The once and future king
10-24-2004, 04:41 PM
You have only begun to aswere my question.

My queston is what is the REASON for this choice of tyrant to goto war against given there are a multitutude of tyrants to choose from.

In essence if there are a multitude of tyrants, on what grounds do you differentiate this tyrant from others.

What ever that differentation that is the true reaosn for the war.

What ever that reason is, we have not heard it explicitly stated by the Administration as such.

MMMMMM
10-24-2004, 05:01 PM
OK, but that does not invalidate the humanitarian argument for ridding the world of Saddam Hussein.

The once and future king
10-24-2004, 05:28 PM
That is of course the only justification for the war. Ironicaly given the condition of Human relations on this planet it is the only arguement that the Administration could never explicitly use.

Which is apt because in reality it is not the reason they went to war anyway.

Also your list of conditions seems strange for a libertarian.

I would assume a libertarion government would never go to war merely on the moral behalf of its citizens, but only in real terms of self protection from clear and well defined threats.

n short a Libertarian Government is not there to make such moral judgements on behalf of the population and then spend their money on the consequences of those judgements.

durron597
10-24-2004, 05:37 PM
[ QUOTE ]
In essence if there are a multitude of tyrants, on what grounds do you differentiate this tyrant from others.

[/ QUOTE ]

Each situation is different. Iran, for example, has a rising middle class (relatively speaking), and 70 million people, as compared to Iraq's 20 million. There is a lot more hope than we can turn things around diplomatically in Iran than there was in Iraq (which there was no hope).

North Korea is set in between many major powers in the region which we have to deal with. Seoul is within ARTILLERY range of the North Korean border. (In contrast, Jerusalem is only within rocket range of Iraq, which we can actually have a hope of shooting down, and which are much harder to come by). That means that if we do any military action in North Korea, Seoul is likely to be destroyed with basically nothing we can do about it. Also, realize that the whole reason North Korea even exists in the first place is because of Chinese intervention; we had WON the Korean War until China sent a million of it's own troops in to save the war for the North Koreans. That's why 6-nation talks are so important there (NK, SK, China, Japan, Russia and US).

As far as Libya is concerned, they've already abandoned their WMD program through our diplomatic negotiations.

On the other hand, we had been negotiating with Saddam Hussein since before the Persian Gulf War, and nothing had been done. Why do you think things suddenly would have changed in March 2003 when nothing had been done prior to that? We have proof that he was misleading inspectors; he managed to do SUCH a good job of convincing the world that he did have WMDs that helped convince us to go in and do something about it. Maybe he didn't want us to find his 500 tons of yellow cake uranium and 1.8 tons of enriched uranium. (http://cshink.com/not_exactly.htm)

I think that Bush has shown unusual judgement and discretion to be handling each case separately and appropriately.

MMMMMM
10-24-2004, 06:30 PM
I think the Libertarian Platform may be somewhat poorly conceived or, better put, oversimplified, in some respects with regards to foreign intervention, and immigration. Yet the rest of the platform strikes me as so vastly superior to the Republican and Democrat Platforms that I now find myself a registered Libertarian. That doesn't mean I agree with every plank in the platform, and I doubt that most citizens anywhere agree with every single plank in the platforms of their party of choice.

Nor am I necessarily saying that I would under any circumstances support foreign intervention. It may well be that a policy of zero foreign intervention, zero foreign aid, and zero welfare/social programs in the USA itself, would be superior overall to attempts to find the best balances. I am curently withholding judgment on that pending further investigation and consideration.

ACPlayer
10-24-2004, 06:42 PM
Let us suppose that there were 10 tyrants all of which are good candidates for elimination. We chose one of those candidates for certain reasons.

We should then forget about the tyrant argument and focus on what led us to that one tyrant out of the candidates. THat is now the meat of the discussion. Was it self interest -- oil? was it protection of an ally -- Israel? Was it doing what pappy wants - GHWB? Was it WMD?

No body denies Saddam is a tyrant. Removing him has however, in hind sight, not made the world safer nor is the world better for the average Iraqi. It was seen as a bad decision by some before the war -- not it is a demonstrably bad decision.

ACPlayer
10-24-2004, 06:45 PM
Yeah, but Bush did not wake up one morning and tell him minions -- I want to rid the world of a tyrant, find the best candidate.

He woke up one morning (apparently during his 2000 election) and vowed to rid the world of Saddam -- what were his reasons for choosing that war.

MMMMMM
10-24-2004, 09:33 PM
To me, that is less important than the fact that a humanitarian deed has been accomplished--as the victims of Saddam's regime would concur.

MMMMMM
10-24-2004, 09:35 PM
I say give it some more time before deciding it was bad--the turmoil we are curently seeing is probably the approximate nadir of the whole thing.

lastchance
10-25-2004, 01:44 AM
Need to get an accurate representation of reality... This time for all your chips..

Can't believe I'm being colder than a libertarian here, but you can't possibly go take a war for humanitarian reasons after 9/11. Our troops are stretched too thin..

Need to focus on Osama and Al-Qaida, though this is one way to establish a presence in the middle east, but I sure don't like it.

The_Tracker
10-25-2004, 01:54 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Interesting article indeed. Very well written. Inspires sympathy and admiration.

So I will respond the way bisonbison responded to the last one of these. "So I guess this makes the war and planning a good idea after all."

The soldiers might believe this for these reasons (and they have to, their lives depend on it) but did the American public? No. Would they have? No. That's why Bush 'sexed up the evidence' as they say in Britain.

The debate over whether invading Iraq for these reasons would have been correct is indeed interesting, but moot.

NT

[/ QUOTE ]

nothumb,

Totally off topic, but do you post at AR?

If you do, you will of course know what that is.
If not, you will probably say to yourself, huh.

Just curious, I have seen your avatar there.

MMMMMM
10-25-2004, 03:16 AM
There are two separate arguments and people seem to mix the two.

One is the humanitarian case. The other is the mixed bag of WMD-program prophylacty, safeguarding the oil for free sale on world markets, and establishing a strategic Middle-East base of sorts.

The humanitarian case was strong but that was not our primary motivation for war. That however does not detract from the humanitarian argument one iota. Similarly, the strategic/security case had its own merits (and some flaws) but that does not bolster the humanitarian case. So even if we went to war for strategic reasons (primarily or entirely), a great deal of good has been done in humanitarian terms.

Therefore it can be argued that the war was justified on a humanitarian basis even if we had other primary goals for going to war.

ACPlayer
10-25-2004, 05:04 AM
.

ACPlayer
10-25-2004, 05:10 AM
.. and to you it matters not what those reasons are. Whther the decisions were well made with good thought or not, as long as we did "good" and handed Iraqi's a Saddamless society this was justified.


Complete mumbo jumbo. Because every other reason has been proved to be wrong, you are falling back on but we did good, thank you mothers and fathers and wives and sisters your loved ones did not die to help America be safe but at least we did some good.

Mumbo eff'ing jumbo.

MMMMMM
10-25-2004, 09:32 AM
[ QUOTE ]
.. and to you it matters not what those reasons are.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it does matter, but regardless of those reasons, the humanitarian case exists.

[ QUOTE ]
Whther the decisions were well made with good thought or not, as long as we did "good" and handed Iraqi's a Saddamless society this was justified.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I do think those decisions were made with good thought based upon available information. And I also think we did good and that the Iraqis will be better off in the future.


[ QUOTE ]
Complete mumbo jumbo. Because every other reason has been proved to be wrong,...

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think every other reason has been proved to be wrong. In particular I see only one reason which was probably wrong, that Saddam currently had WMD. I think most of the other reasons were probably right, though it is hard to know for sure.


[ QUOTE ]
... you are falling back on but we did good, thank you mothers and fathers and wives and sisters your loved ones did not die to help America be safe but at least we did some good.

[/ QUOTE ]

Appeal to emotion.


[ QUOTE ]
Mumbo eff'ing jumbo.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can point you towards a good study-at-home course in Pig Latin, if you like. Best of all it's free /images/graemlins/grin.gif

tolbiny
10-25-2004, 10:52 AM
I am not sure why i am posting this MMMMMM, you and i are so diametrically opposed on the war that i doubt that any discussion is going to lead to an agreement, or even an aquiensence by either side, but i have some time to kill at work so here goes.

I cannot agree with your contention that the war was well thought out, the initial invasion was clearly a military success, but thta is not what i take you to mean, There was definate evidence that Saddam's WMD program was no longer effective, and two of the member's of Bush's admin (Powell, Rice) stated (prior to 9/11) as such. Bush had access to the same information that they had and he came to the determination that Saddam still had and was continuing to produce WMDs. Since neither of us are privy to all of the information that they had the only way that i can make what i feel to be a fair judgement is to go with which opinion turned out to be correct. So in my mind Bush (and by Bush i mean his whole adminstration who was for going to war) made an error of judgment.
Secondly it has become clear that a larger force of troops would have been more succesfull in secruing the country after the initial invasion. The attemps to "win the hearts and minds" of the Iraq people seem to be failing as anti-american sentiment, and the numbers ofinsugents continue to rise. Again i feel that the final decisions on the post invasion plans were seriously flawed, and that the only people who can be held accountable are those that made the decisions.


I also seriously disagree with you on the idea that a humanitarian case for the war exists- because in my mind the situation of the average Iraqi is not signifigantly improved without saddam- with every bit of good news (the scheduling of free elections) there is something negative to accompany it (minoritie groups threatining to boycott the elections). I think there is still a chance that the country can be righted and show marked improvement, but i also feel there is a stronger chance that the elections will either fail, or that those elected into power will need to use large amounts of force to supress their oppposition and this will lead to a pseudo democratic state.

ACPlayer
10-25-2004, 11:38 AM
.